Why must we hunt?

After we polluted our whole earth, decimated the fish population, knocked down our forests, killed everything we've ever encountered... why do people still feel the need to hunt for sport??? havent we done enough to ruin this planet?

I believe hunting in many areas in the US is actually NECCESSARY to control the population. Animals such as deer are numerous in wooded areas around the country and hunting limits have been setup to control these populations from exploding and possibly spilling out more and more into urban areas. Animals such as bears also have population concerns and are more stringently monitored and regulated as far as hunting limits.

I'm not a hunter but I do understand the need for controlling a population. Its either through the practice of hunting, or some other means. Some people may propose other methods such as euthansia or animal birth control, but thats kinda crazy talk if you ask me. It is more humane, but then we may as well ban fishing as well, control the fish population by the same humane methods.

This also translates to humans and an argument pros and cons for controlling OUR population growth similar to what China imposes. If you do extrapolate into our near future however, the need to control OUR population is not optional unless we want to strip our resources from the surface of the Earth...

Originally posted by hikix
. why do people still feel the need to hunt for sport??? havent we done enough to ruin this planet?

In some places people breed pheasants etc entirely for hunting the next year, so there is no real effect on the population. Generally we eat them afterwards too, same goes for other game birds and rabbits etc. So it is sport, but it goes into dinner as well.

Yea in the past people killed only to kill, in the US passerbys on a train would just take popshots at buffalo grazing in the old west. If this is done today with any game animals and caught, uh, yea you'd be in trouble .

[edit on 28-4-2007 by greatlakes]

In my opinion, the only reason to hunt, is if you actually need the food,
like if you are lost in the wilderness.

We would'nt have population problems with herbivores and 'prey animals'
if we had'nt brought many predator species to or near extinction.

For example, the wolf population in Idaho was endangered until recently,
and even now there are only a few hundred of them, yet the governor
wants to hunt them back into there endangered status (in fact I'm pretty
sure he'd like to kill them all), and the only reason is because people
continually expand into nature, and steal the wolves territory, which they
have lived on since before we had civilization.


Personally I think hunting, unless it is the scenario I originally mentioned,
should be completely illegal, with heavy fines for most animals, and prison
terms for killing endangered or near/sentient animals.

what is really necessary is too control human population, not animal population.
give some deer some guns
LOL
but serious, human population is out of control
and we have posioned the enviorment from pole to pole, ocean to ocean lake to lake, stream to stream, air and soil.
we are in deep dodos

If you kill a deer, gut it, skin it, etc., and eat all that you are able to take from the animal, then to me you are less hypocritical than the consumer who grabs a shrink wrapped pound of lean hamburger at the grocer. At least the hunter has to face the grim reality of where his steak came from. Many anti-hunting folks have no qualms about eating processed meat packaged neatly, and looking nothing like an animal. It still had to die either way, at least the deer lived a life worth living. Cows, chickens, pigs, etc., have no life. I abhor sport hunting, and wolf kills in Alaska done to preserve the prey for the hunters to shoot instead bugs me too. But, the worst is the seal hunt.
What hunting is that? You walk up to a helpless baby seal and bash his brains in. That is hard to call hunting.

I think that's why most people who do not believe in hunting tend to be
vegetarians, since they realize how hypocritical it would be.

Personally I only eat chicken, turkey and tuna when it comes to meat.
I don't consider turkeys and chickens that important, since they tend to
be incredibly stupid, I mean anything that will look up and drown itself in
a rainstorm really does'nt deserve my sympathy.

My main hunting goal these days is to feed my family. the last time I bought lean ground beef in a supermarket, it was nearly 4 dollars a pound!

I my hunting license costs ~$50. Gas to and from the hunting site is another ~$50. Probably another twenty for incidentals.

If I get 2 bucks and a doe, figure that dresses out to 180 pounds of meat when all is said and done. That comes out to what,

67 cents a pound !!!

And frankly, the meat is much better. The animals weren't "finished off" in a fattening feedlot, have not been fed any antibiotics or growth hormones.

Additionally, I grind my own burger, and so I control the fat content.

Most importantly, I dress the meat out myself, and so I know that the animals were killed instantly, and the meat was protected from the e. coli of the intestines, and began freezing in less than an hour and a half after being taken.


Most Americans who hunt are working class people who depend on the meat to augment their families' grocery budget. It isn't politically correct because most of the people who hunt also do manual labor, and live in rural areas.

Typically, vegetarians are upper-middle class.


The assault on hunting has shades of class war written all over it.




.


[edit on 28-4-2007 by dr_strangecraft]

You don't want to hunt? OK by me. Don't hunt. No one is forcing you. It's your free choice.

It leaves more game for the people that do hunt.

To compliment all the good justifications already posted, I'd just add that hunting is written into our DNA. Just as competition for resources, breeding rights, and power are "written in".

All those who despise "hunting" still "hunt". They don't stalk prey for sustenance, but they pursue the best spousal candidate, the best neighborhood, best school for their litters, the best price for milk, sirloin/gas, etc.

And most of these "hunters" have no compunction with eating the flesh of farm raised, fattened, hormone injected, and humiliatingly terminated cattle, poultry etc.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
To compliment all the good justifications already posted, I'd just add that hunting is written into our DNA. Just as competition for resources, breeding rights, and power are "written in".

All those who despise "hunting" still "hunt". They don't stalk prey for sustenance, but they pursue the best spousal candidate, the best neighborhood, best school for their litters, the best price for milk, sirloin/gas, etc.

And most of these "hunters" have no compunction with eating the flesh of farm raised, fattened, hormone injected, and humiliatingly terminated cattle, poultry etc.

I really have to disagree with that, I despise hunting, and I do not do any
of that, I don't hunt for the best of something, I prefer the best available,
but I don't go out of my way to find the best.

To me, it's more to do with that those things were living things that
thought, and felt, and even though it may not be as complex as ours,
I still can not consume them for that simple reason.

Originally posted by iori_komei
I think that's why most people who do not believe in hunting tend to be
vegetarians, since they realize how hypocritical it would be.

Personally I only eat chicken, turkey and tuna when it comes to meat.
I don't consider turkeys and chickens that important, since they tend to
be incredibly stupid, I mean anything that will look up and drown itself in
a rainstorm really does'nt deserve my sympathy.

So you consider yourself the arbiter of the worth of species?

You apply your sense intelligence, right and wrong, and values, and determine which species are OK to kill and eat and which are not?

Wow.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
So you consider yourself the arbiter of the worth of species?

You apply your sense intelligence, right and wrong, and values, and determine which species are OK to kill and eat and which are not?

Wow.

No, I do not consider myself to be that.

I just said why I don't eat anything except the three animals I stated.

Originally posted by iori_komei

Originally posted by darkbluesky
So you consider yourself the arbiter of the worth of species?

You apply your sense intelligence, right and wrong, and values, and determine which species are OK to kill and eat and which are not?

Wow.

No, I do not consider myself to be that.

I just said why I don't eat anything except the three animals I stated.

You deemed turkey and chicken as stupid, therefore acceptable for consumption. I know alot of stupid people. Can I eat them?

It is illogical to divide animals into 'food' and 'non-food', and the cultures who eat cats and dogs, bugs, monkeys, whales, and such are actually more sensible than those who discriminate.
By the way, Iori, did you know that recent DNA research has been published stating that the closest modern animal to dinosaurs is chickens. So be careful about that, you don't want an angry T Rex taking vengeance out for eating some KFC.
I admire vegetarianism, and though I never have been one, I know it is a viable diet, that can be healthy if done right.
That said, I enjoy venison, moose, and many other game meats. They are far tastier, to me, than store bought domesticated animals. And probably healthier for one, too.

Originally posted by darkbluesky
You deemed turkey and chicken as stupid, therefore acceptable for consumption. I know alot of stupid people. Can I eat them?

People don't go around looking up in rainstorms and subsequently
drowning theselves, nor can people live without there head.

I do not go around imposing my own dietary/moral beliefs on people so
I am nto acting as arbiter of what is right and wronf to eat animal wise.

Originally posted by greatlakes
I believe hunting in many areas in the US is actually NECCESSARY to control the population. Animals such as deer are numerous in wooded areas around the country and hunting limits have been setup to control these populations from exploding and possibly spilling out more and more into urban areas.

Hmmm...Perhaps hunting for "population control" would not be too much of a problem if certain predator species had not been sanctioned for bounty (such as wolves) for so many years; This is just one example to make my point. Perhaps even the predator species that haven't been bounty hunted wouldn't be much of a problem if humanity would learn to curb its own population & avoid consuming so much in resources...Once the animals' food sources are eliminated because of human expansion, where else have they left to hunt besides among humans?

Nature has a way of leveling out it's own populations and humanity is not excluded from that Natural Law.

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
Hmmm...Perhaps hunting for "population control" would not be too much of a problem if certain predator species had not been sanctioned for bounty (such as wolves) for so many years; This is just one example to make my point.

Deer are probably the species that is hunted the most, as deer are most prevalent around the country. Predators of deer would include wolves, maybe coyotes, mountain lions. Now we cant have wolves, coyotes and mountain lions running around in the wild in the places that deer are now found. The areas are just too urban and suburban. Its just a fact of life that we live with.

What would you suggest that we do RIGHT NOW if hunting was outlawed today, how would we curb the deer population for instance? If we did not curb the population of deer for a year, the number of deaths due to car accidents from hitting deer on roads would skyrocket. It's still a problem sporadically in rural areas. So whats your solution?

Also in line with not killing animals, would we also outlaw chicken farming, fish farming, fishing in general, and basically outlaw all animal from being killed for our food? What wold that do, think of it, no more KFC's, no more livestock farmers, no more fishing industry, no animal by-products (used in 1000's of everyday products).

Im not for hunting nor against it, just playing devils advocate.

[edit on 29-4-2007 by greatlakes]

Originally posted by greatlakes
What would you suggest that we do RIGHT NOW if hunting was outlawed today, how would we curb the deer population for instance?

I never said that hunting should be outlawed...Just try hunting more for food instead of for sport. That should also lower the cost of your food budget, don't you think?

Originally posted by greatlakes
If we did not curb the population of deer for a year, the number of deaths due to car accidents from hitting deer on roads would skyrocket. It's still a problem sporadically in rural areas. So whats your solution?

So, the bounty-hunting of predator species winds up eventually creating a surplus of prey species, who then help lower the population of unobservant humans in their vehicles...Poetic justice or Natural Law? You decide.
Seriously though, Natural Law promotes balance. Even though phrased in a joking manner, that natural progression in my previous paragraph only reinforces the Natural Laws that "everything is interconnected with everything else". It's humanity that tends to display arrogance against the Natural Law & he can't rise above it either.


[edit on 29-4-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]